I have snipped a few bits from a recent post
by Michael Kopp and appended my questions and opinions. Hope
I have not snipped him too much out of context of the original
post.

Thanks for any comments and answers in response
to my comments.

KOPP wrote:

As I've pleaded elsewhere, this list is
not about understanding Steiner or Anthroposophy, but about whether
SWA has any place or right in public or publicly-funded schools,
and what are the effects of an SWA education, for the benefit
of those people who wish to take a more critical, skeptical look
at SWA before investing time, money and their children's lives
in it.

Amy An writes:

Thanks for the above, it goes a long way toward
answering my questions about the purpose of this list. I am drawn
to the conversation but on this list but have been a bit put
off by the fierce and sometimes fearful sounding dislike of Waldorf
education. It can sound so much like the extreme opposite of
a fervent Waldorf supporter that a reasonable medium seems elusive.

What exactly and specifically do you all see
as the effects of a Waldorf education? Briefly I will say I do
not love 100% every thing about my son's first grade (new school
with just the first grade right now) but I like it a lot better
than the other alternatives I see. I don't see the parents at
the school as being misled. For the year or so prior to starting
the school parents interested in the school joined a study group
to read Steiner and related materials and to discuss them. Not
all study group participants joined the school. There were workshops
for kids (with parents) on the math and reading teaching methods
so parents got to see the program in action.

The school works for my son. He is happy,
cannot wait to go to school and I see that he is making progress
in math and reading and that he is learning Spanish and German.
I also see that while he is not "taught" directly any
religious content he has picked up things we do not teach or
believe at home. I remind him those are the stories (which is
what I have heard teachers say) that some people believe (my
interpretation) and I share alternative stories on the same topic
with him. The same thing happens with friends who send their
children to Catholic schools, though they are not Catholic, as
those schools are the best alternatives those parents have found.

So what is is specifically that you would
want me to worry or think about? What are some questions you
would suggest I ask the teachers and parents at the school?

KOPP ALSO WROTE:

Science is not philosophy. Why do you demand
a philosophy of life, the Universe and everything from scientific,
rationalist critics of Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf? Why
should we have to replace mumbo jumbo with another metaphysics?

Amy An writes:

But science _is_ philosophy. Science can be
the glasses you wear and use to view the world. And science exists
within a culture. I spent several years as a student in a University
academic department and my husband has a Phd and teaches at a
University. I can see that "hot" topics (_methods_,
departments, and individuals too) get the research money and
therefore get explored and defined as truth. So truth becomes
defined by who pays for it, though what they paid for was found
scientifically.

And scientific method can and does take a
back seat to human feelings. When aspirin was discovered in clinical
trials to be beneficial to heart patients the clinical trials
(with control groups of patients not given aspirin) were stopped
and all patients were given aspirin.

There are many many biases in the scientific
search for truth as we all know. I form and explore my hypotheses
not in a cultural vacuum but in relation to the world I live
in.

The point, made on this list before, is that
what we define as scientific method has changed over time and
the current definition, though used often on this list as the
ultimate arbiter of truth, may be ridiculed in just a few years
as backward and limited or even as too culturally biased.

Several of the things described here as pseudo
science and quackery have been examined scientifically and found
to have at least some foundation in truth. In the last year the
American Medical Association (I think it was the AMA) released
a report on acupuncture and other alternative medical approaches.
What I remember is that they found acupuncture did not help some
diseases and problems but that it did offer substantial pain
relief. It does work for some things. Perhaps acupuncture could
work better and will some day, or perhaps it will not.

My point in mentioning acupuncture is that
I sometimes see this list blurr the lines between a general skeptics
discussion and a Waldorf critics discussion and that it often
has an "us and them" division which I do not find helpful.
Acupuncture has problems as a therapy but it does work well in
some situations. So it would seem to me to be with a Waldorf
approach. There are some problems but some good points. If the
Waldorf Supporters site does not want a critical review of WE
does this one have to be so negative? It makes it hard for me
to see the point and hear your message. Can we work more productively
to evaluate and improve Waldorf education? Is it a lost cause
that cannot be improved?

What other types of education have any of
you found for your children when you left WE? As I said in an
earlier post I fear the textbooks and teaching philosophy of
the public school system more than I worry about the Waldorf
program my son attends. How have the rest of you resolved this?
What do or did you like and dislike about other school situations
your children may have attended?

So what is is specifically that you would
want me to worry or think about? What are some questions you
would suggest I ask the teachers and parents at the school?

Amy,

Here is a list of questions and concerns that
I wrote up to discuss with my son's first grade teacher. I was
satisfied with her responses, but we took my son out of the class
anyway at the end of first grade because he was bored.

Feel free to use this list as you see fit:

CONCERNS ABOUT WALDORF EDUCATION

I agree with the Waldorf approach to education,
but disagree with much of what I have heard that children are
taught. Specific teachings that are contrary to current scientific
knowledge or belief include:

C Insects are related to plants;

C The elements are earth, water, fire and
air;

C The heart not a pump, or circulatory system
is described, but the role of the heart is not explained;

C Planets influence growth of plants;

C Plants are like a man upside down;

C Goethean vs Newtonian color theory;

C The body is made up of the nervesense system,
the metabolicmuscular system, and the rhythmic system;

C There are 12 senses, corresponding to signs
of the zodiac;

C There are four kingdoms of nature, mineral,
plant, animal, and man;

C Species were specially created, rather than
evolving from one another, and spiritual beings were the creators;

C Left-handedness is a condition that should
be "corrected;

C The "ancients" had powers and
knowledge lost to us, such as alchemy and the ability to see
things outside the physical realm;

C Religious mythology is taught as ancient
history, or the theosophical framework for ancient history is
taught as fact.

C That there is a relationship between the
dactylic hexameter of Greek epic/heroic poetry, as in the Odyssey,
and the socalled "Platonic Year" (a hypothesis by Plato
and others about the precession of the equinoxes over 26,000
years) and the number of breaths/hearbeats in a day.

C Astrology is taught in the higher grades.

Also, I have heard of disturbing events at
other schools, including:

C Parents being asked to leave the school
when they questioned or objected to aspects of Waldorf education
or anthroposophy.

C Kids being inadequately supervised on the
playground to prevent bullying and accidents, on the theory that
angels will watch out for them.

C Dunce caps being used.

Finally, I have heard of child studies being
performed to determine the child,s karma and destiny, without
the involvement or knowledge of the parents. Shouldn,t the parents
be involved, or at least have knowledge of, the results of studies
being done on their children?

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman

If anyone can find a reference to the origin
of this notion, I would very much like to see it. Is this from
Steiner or someone else? Any explanation? (I saw a chapter about
this in a book about Waldorf education. It was written by some
lady and placed side by side with Steiner's lectures. Does anyone
know why?)

I was changed from being left handed to right
handed in the first grade. I don't really know what the reasons
were for this, but have always assumed it was some combination
of European pragmatism (with regard to handwriting and tools)
and WE itself. (there weren't that many left handed baseball
gloves either) As I understand it, this is (or was) common practice
in Europe. IMHO, so long as we write from left to right, and
are a predominately right handed people, there are pragmatic
reasons for switching handedness. Why Steiner advocated being
right handed, I have no idea.

e

PS Since I'm the <SARCASM>victim</SARCASM>
here, I am curious if anyone knows of any profound difficulties
I should be made aware of? And to think I've always blamed my
problems on breast feeding.....

Tarjei Straume wrote:

Steve Premo wrote:

C Left-handedness is a condition that should
be "corrected;

If anyone can find a reference to the origin
of this notion, I would very much like to see it. Is this from
Steiner or someone else? Any explanation? (I saw a chapter about
this in a book about Waldorf education. It was written by some
lady and placed side by side with Steiner's lectures. Does anyone
know why?)

If anyone can find a reference to the origin
of this notion, I would very much like to see it. Is this from
Steiner or someone else?

I don't know the origin of the notion, but
from discussions on the Waldorf list, I know that this is from
Steiner.

Apparently, some schools will only take action
to "correct" left-handedness with the consent of the
parents, teacher, and the child's doctor, but at other schools,
the teachers will actively discourage kids from writing or drawing
with their left hands.

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman

I have snipped a few bits from a recent post by Michael Kopp
and appended my questions and opinions. Hope I have not snipped
him too much out of context of the original post.

Thanks for any comments and answers in response to my comments.

KOPP wrote:

As I've pleaded elsewhere, this list is not about understanding
Steiner or Anthroposophy, but about whether SWA has any place
or right in public or publicly-funded schools, and what are the
effects of an SWA education, for the benefit of those people
who wish to take a more critical, skeptical look at SWA before
investing time, money and their children's lives in it.

Amy An writes:

Thanks for the above, it goes a long way toward answering my
questions about the purpose of this list. I am drawn to the conversation
but on this list but have been a bit put off by the fierce and
sometimes fearful sounding dislike of Waldorf education. It can
sound so much like the extreme opposite of a fervent Waldorf
supporter that a reasonable medium seems elusive.

What exactly and specifically do you all see as the effects of
a Waldorf education? Briefly I will say I do not love 100% every
thing about my son's first grade (new school with just the first
grade right now) but I like it a lot better than the other alternatives
I see. I don't see the parents at the school as being misled.
For the year or so prior to starting the school parents interested
in the school joined a study group to read Steiner and related
materials and to discuss them. Not all study group participants
joined the school. There were workshops for kids (with parents)
on the math and reading teaching methods so parents got to see
the program in action.

Michael KOPP replies:

I do not believe it is possible to have a
constructive dialogue between two groups of people who have such
opposite views. Believers will never doubt, and skeptics will
never believe (on faith alone, or intuition) without evidence.

As I pointed out in another recent post, we
live in a time where to argue is to be shunned, where argument
is itself shunned in favour of "bulding consensus"
or some other such nonsense whose purpose is usually the preservation
of the status quo of a powerful elite.

The "fierce and sometimes fearful sounding
dislike of Waldorf" is, for those who have experienced negative
consequences for themselves or their children, understandable.
Yet the fiercest critics still say that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy
(SWA) has a right to exist, and people have the right to choose
it as a way of life.

I have written at length on what I see as
the negative "effects of a Waldorf education". Have
you read the archives? How long have you been reading this list?
Everyone tires of hearing the same complaints all the time, but
I repeat them because many newcomers to the list may not believe
the criticism they see here can reflect reality.

Briefly:

SWA education removes the child from critical,
rational, skeptical thinking, and replaces that with a belief
that any proposition, however irrational or wild, can have equal
value. Ideas are not examined for their validity.

SWA education teaches medieval, mystical world
views and outdated "knowledge" which it claims is superior
to modern scientific knowledge. It replaces science with pseudo-science.
It inculcates in children by stealth a spiritualistic view of
a supernatural world.

SWA education is out of step with modern theories
of child development, and certainly out of step with the sophistication
of modern life. It is as if when the child enters the school,
the clock is turned back, and life is as it might be in some
idyllic Amish community.

This is attractive to people who fearfully
believe modern life is _too_ "sophisticated" and in
fact is bad, and who have an especial dislike for science, sometimes
considering it the root of all modern evils. However, SWA stunts
children's development, and does not prepare them to deal with
the real world by use of critical faculties.

SWA education, far from leading to freedom,
is rigid and lockstep.

SWA education resents parental influence on
children, and works against it by refusing to engage parents'
concerns about the philosophical base of the curriculum, or to
answer parents' complaints about pseudo-science or the teaching
of myth as fact.

SWA dupes parents about the real nature of
Anthroposophy and the extent to which it is prevalent in the
classroom, curriculum and ethos of the schools.

The school works for my son. He is happy,
cannot wait to go to school and I see that he is making progress
in math and reading and that he is learning Spanish and German.
I also see that while he is not "taught" directly any
religious content he has picked up things we do not teach or
believe at home. I remind him those are the stories (which is
what I have heard teachers say) that some people believe (my
interpretation) and I share alternative stories on the same topic
with him. The same thing happens with friends who send their
children to Catholic schools, though they are not Catholic, as
those schools are the best alternatives those parents have found.

So what is is specifically that you would want me to worry or
think about? What are some questions you would suggest I ask
the teachers and parents at the school?

KOPP:

Please see the reposting of the list of things
I and Dan Saykaly and others would like to have told to parents
before they enroll, which I will send separately from this message.
It will be titled "Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure
to parents".

KOPP ALSO WROTE:

Science is not philosophy. Why do you demand a philosophy of
life, the Universe and everything from scientific, rationalist
critics of Steiner, Anthroposophy, and Waldorf? Why should we
have to replace mumbo jumbo with another metaphysics?

Amy An writes:

But science _is_ philosophy. Science can be the glasses you wear
and use to view the world. And science exists within a culture.
I spent several years as a student in a University academic department
and my husband has a Phd and teaches at a University. I can see
that "hot" topics (_methods_, departments, and individuals
too) get the research money and therefore get explored and defined
as truth. So truth becomes defined by who pays for it, though
what they paid for was found scientifically.

KOPP replies:

You misunderstand the nature of science. Science
is a method of thinking about, testing and understanding nature
in terms of evidence. IT IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

Science DOES have a philosophy; the philosophy
of science is studied as a separate discipline to the practice
of science. If I (an imperfect student of the philosophy of science)
were to characterise science's philosophy, I would say it is
...

"Show me evidence. Replicate that evidence.
Show me how it can be tested, and falsified. Discard theory and
evidence that is superseded. Seek truth in reality, not imagination
and intuition."

May I ask you and your husband's disciplines?
Are you scientists? Are your degrees, or substantial academic
work, in science?

AN:

And scientific method can and does take
a back seat to human feelings. When aspirin was discovered in
clinical trials to be beneficial to heart patients the clinical
trials (with control groups of patients not given aspirin) were
stopped and all patients were given aspirin.

There are many many biases in the scientific search for truth
as we all know. I form and explore my hypotheses not in a cultural
vacuum but in relation to the world I live in.

The point, made on this list before, is that what we define as
scientific method has changed over time and the current definition,
though used often on this list as the ultimate arbiter of truth,
may be ridiculed in just a few years as backward and limited
or even as too culturally biased.

KOPP:

Weasel words. The principle of the scientific
method has NOT changed that much in the last 150 years; it is
remarkably robust. And its foremost credential is that its products
are open to challenge and revision by new scientific knowledge.

While people with affinities to the spiritualistic
and supernatural are chipping at the edges of the edifice of
science today, trying to inject irrationality, they are as mosquitoes
to an elephant. What _does_ change about science is its practice
-- and that is, as Ms An says, a cultural element.

If science is, as she says, "ridiculed
in just a few years as backward", it will be because irrationality
has won the political and cultural battle; NOT because science
will have been found wanting.

AN:

Several of the things described here as
pseudo science and quackery have been examined scientifically
and found to have at least some foundation in truth. In the last
year the American Medical Association (I think it was the AMA)
released a report on acupuncture and other alternative medical
approaches. What I remember is that they found acupuncture did
not help some diseases and problems but that it did offer substantial
pain relief. It does work for some things. Perhaps acupuncture
could work better and will some day, or perhaps it will not.

KOPP:

Can you give us some more specific data on
the things you think have changed from quack status to truth
status?

I think you will find that it is the U.S.
National Institutes of Health and the Federal Food and Drug Administration
that have changed the "status" of acupuncture -- NOT
science.

These are, of course, cultural and political
institutions, and they respond to pressures from the public which
wants alternative medicine, and the industries that provide those
alternatives. What the NIH and FDA have done is to LIST acupuncture
as an acceptable treatment _for the purpose of Government medical
assistance funding_.

Neither have made any greater scientific claim
of efficacy, or provided any greater scientific understanding
for, acupuncture than that made by Ms An: "it does work
for some things". So do placebos.

Note that I am not saying that acupuncture
is bunk (though I believe its practice is wildly fraudulent by
quacks). I am not saying there is no scientific basis for it.
(I think it is unlikely that the ancient explanations are valid.)
I see no harm in pursuing scientific studies of acupuncture.

But its approval by government agencies charged
with safeguarding us from quackery is worrisome in the extreme.
What will be next for approval -- channelling? It is worth noting
that these agencies gave their approval _over the objections
of their own and other independent scientists_.

AN:

My point in mentioning acupuncture is that
I sometimes see this list blurr the lines between a general skeptics
discussion and a Waldorf critics discussion and that it often
has an "us and them" division which I do not find helpful.
Acupuncture has problems as a therapy but it does work well in
some situations. So it would seem to me to be with a Waldorf
approach. There are some problems but some good points. If the
Waldorf Supporters site does not want a critical review of WE
does this one have to be so negative? It makes it hard for me
to see the point and hear your message. Can we work more productively
to evaluate and improve Waldorf education? Is it a lost cause
that cannot be improved?

KOPP:

Despite claims to the contrary by defenders
of SWA, critics see almost no change in any aspect of SWA, either
as a result their criticism or any progress that SWA might desire
to make on its own part.

None of the criticisms I had of my children's
pseudo-scientific education were ever even admitted of discussion
by our school. None of my concerns about the use of religious
myth in the place of the teaching of secular, recorded history
were ever even approachable with the school people.

As has been told many times before here by
critics, SWA schools have a "take it or leave it" policy.
I was told point blank that the school was uninterested in anything
I had to say about their special character curriculum, and that
Anthroposophical underpinnings of the classroom were not open
to change.

As Ms An says, there are some good things
about Waldorf education.

But they are far outweighed by the negative
factors of pseudo-science, spiritualism-by-stealth, incorrect
historical teachings, and the basic tenet of SWA schools that
they exist not to educate children's minds for _this_ temporal
life, but to prepare their spirits for their next, supposedly
higher, reincarnation.

If Ms An understands the true nature of SWA,
and wants that for her children -- in a private education --
that is her right. (Though I am coming to believe more firmly
in the right of the state to demand a certain secular curriculum
to offset such religious education.)

But I do not believe there can be any accommodation
between science and superstition. I do not believe science will
-- or can -- embrace intuition, clarivoyance, wisdom received
from spirits, and other irrationalities.

Which is not to say that I do not think irrationality
can win in the end. I am afraid -- very afraid -- that it will,
as we travel backwards into a new dark age.

AN:

What other types of education have any
of you found for your children when you left WE? As I said in
an earlier post I fear the textbooks and teaching philosophy
of the public school system more than I worry about the Waldorf
program my son attends. How have the rest of you resolved this?
What do or did you like and dislike about other school situations
your children may have attended?

KOPP:

Public education has been a perennial, almost
eternal, whipping boy. So it is here in Godzone, where educational
standards are declining. Here (and in other Western countries)
this is a result, I think, of the mechanistic view of education
demanded by business and parents who believe that in a free-market
society competitive ability is all that matters.

Just so, we sought an alternative -- a human-value-centred
one -- for our children after they had been in public schools
for some years. (I had always been a fan of educational freedom,
since reading A.S. Neill's _Summerhill_ many years ago. But no
Summerhills exist.)

We chose a Steiner school because it appeared
to be one which would give children introspective qualities.
It did that.

Unfortunately, it also gave them pseudo-science,
shibboleth, mumbo jumbo, and anti-rationalism.

I think public schools fail because parents
do not accept enough responsibility for their children's education,
and do not do enough at home in terms of value transference and
educational discipline. Of course, this is understandable in
today's all-permeating culture of info-tainment and consumerism.

I do not have an answer. But I do not believe
the answer is Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education --
no matter how attractive it seems as an alternative.

A close friend and his wife have just taken
their seven-year-old out of a public school and sent him to the
Steiner school which we left. My friends are science-trained
rationalists. The mother is on the board of trustees of the public
school their kid was in. They despaired of its problems. They
know all of the negative things about Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
education which critics have published.They could not afford
a truly elite private school, and would not want the toffee-nosed
attitudes it would inculcate in their child.

For them there seemed no alternative to Steiner.
They want their kid to be happy, healthy and educated. I will
watch with interest their son's progress. I wish them luck

Like acupuncture, Steiner works -- for some.
I wish Ms An and her child luck.

I realise I'm just an ignorant Brit, but
I always thought that the majority of baseball gloves were left-handed...

Wow! Someone like me on this list! (Must defend
ASAP). As the Mother of a leftie, it is not easy to find sports
equipment for them - had to special order his golf clubs - and
had no choice as per quality. Baseball gloves were a nightmare
- lucky he connected with soccer!

Yes they sit on the left hand if you are right
handed, but gloves for left handers sit on the right hand. You
throw with your dominant arm. Just in case you were even a wee
serious. Even so, I think Debra's post regarding the unsuitability
of most sports equipment for left handers gives at least some
practical basis for the switch.

I am a bit surprised by most people's reaction
to switching (they seem suspicious and not objective). Steiner's
reasons are a bit on the humorous side (unless you'd bet on Pascal's
wager), but I am still waiting to hear evidence of harm. I received
nothing but A's in all my WE art classes (and my veil painting
stinks) and college courses (drawing, water color etc), so I
do not think it has harmed my artistic expression (though I elected
not to attend an art school, perhaps a left brain decision).
I am right footed, and I don't think that was switched. So PLEASE,
will somebody tell me the terrible truth of my suffering?

e

Stephen Tonkin wrote:

Ezra Beeman wrote:

(there weren't that many left handed baseball
gloves either)

I realise I'm just an ignorant Brit, but
I always thought that the majority of baseball gloves were left-handed...

I have no idea where the idea comes from -
I will ask colleagues. The right- half left-half brain differences
is certainly not Steiner, and could well play a role here. Are
there any experts on this list?

Steve Premo, in response to Amy An wrote what
follows. I have answered one or two of the questions IN CAPS
- perhaps this is helpful. The answers are MY personal views.

Here is a list of questions and concerns that I wrote up to
discuss with my son's first grade teacher. I was satisfied with
her responses, but we took my son out of the class anyway at
the end of first grade because he was bored.

Feel free to use this list as you see fit:

CONCERNS ABOUT WALDORF EDUCATION

I agree with the Waldorf approach to education, but disagree
with much of what I have heard that children are taught. Specific
teachings that are contrary to current scientific knowledge or
belief include:

C Insects are related to plants;

NEVER HEARD THAT ONE

C The elements are earth, water, fire and
air;

IN ANCIENT HISTORY

C The heart not a pump, or circulatory system is described, but
the role of the heart is not explained;

TRICKY! BLOOD IS CIRCULATING THROUGH THE HEART,
BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A PUMP
C Planets influence growth of plants;

THEY DO - should we withold such things?

C Plants are like a man upside down;
WELL ARENT THEY?

C Goethean vs Newtonian color theory;

NEWTON WAS ONE OF THE BEST SCIENTISTS EVER
- GOETHE IS BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT (OUTSIDE WALDORF) AS MODERN
SCIENTISTS SEE HOW AMAZING HIS IDEAS WERE

C The body is made up of the nervesense system, the metabolicmuscular
system, and the rhythmic system;

C There are 12 senses, corresponding to signs of the zodiac;

HOW MANY SENSES DO YOU HAVE? IF 5 THEN WHERE DO YOU SENSE
WARMTH?

C There are four kingdoms of nature, mineral,
plant, animal, and man;

HOW MANY DO YOU THINK THERE ARE?

C Species were specially created, rather than evolving from one
another, and spiritual beings were the creators;

C Left-handedness is a condition that should be "corrected;

C The "ancients" had powers and knowledge lost to us,
such as alchemy and the ability to see things outside the physical
realm;

WALDORFS ARE AMONG A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SEE THAT AS
TRUE

C Religious mythology is taught as ancient
history, or the theosophical framework for ancient history is
taught as fact.

SOUND - THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD; SOMETHING OTHER
THAN OUR MODERN TECHNIQUES CERTAINLY!

C That there is a relationship between the dactylic hexameter
of Greek epic/heroic poetry, as in the Odyssey, and the socalled
"Platonic Year" (a hypothesis by Plato and others about
the precession of the equinoxes over 26,000 years) and the number
of breaths/hearbeats in a day.

C Astrology is taught in the higher grades.

WHERE?

Also, I have heard of disturbing events at other schools, including:

C Parents being asked to leave the school when they questioned
or objected to aspects of Waldorf education or anthroposophy.

I KNOW THIS IS TRUE - I DO NOT LIKE IT. EACH
CASE IS DIFFERENT, BUT THE GENERALISATION IS ALSO MISLEADING

C Kids being inadequately supervised on the playground to prevent
bullying and accidents, on the theory that angels will watch
out for them.

WELL I DONT BELIEVE THAT

C Dunce caps being used.

NEVER IN MY EXPERIENCE

Finally, I have heard of child studies being performed to determine
the child,s karma and destiny, without the involvement or knowledge
of the parents. Shouldn,t the parents be involved, or at least
have knowledge of, the results of studies being done on their
children?

CHILD STUDIES SURE - TO DETERMINE WHAT? WERE
THAT WE WERE SO CLEVER! PARENTS ARE INVOLVED/INFORMED AS APPROPRIATE.

I would like to make a few remarks regarding
questions you have put forward below. I am making these remarks
not as a basis for insisting they are appropriate to be taught
in Waldorf school. It is possible these matters could be taught
at an appropriate age and not violate either main stream science
or critical thinking. I recognize that there are situations were
these matters have been taught in a dogmatic fashion. My expression
of support for these ideas as to do with whether they are (or
might be ) true, and whether human understanding is aided by
coming to know them (the ideas).

Let me run this by again, so confusion can
be avoided. I am distinguishing the question of these ideas as
a true reflection of reality from the question of when and how
and under what circumstances they can or should be taught. All
I am speaking to is the first matter -- their "truth"
chacteristics.

Steve Premo wrote:

CONCERNS ABOUT WALDORF EDUCATION

I agree with the Waldorf approach to education, but disagree
with much of what I have heard that children are taught. Specific
teachings that are contrary to current scientific knowledge or
belief include:

[Are you really suggesting that if something
is contrary to "scientific belief " (whatever that
is), it cannot be taught?]

> C Insects are related to plants;

[Personally I don't see how you can teach
plant biology without a) acknowledging the necessary symbiosis
between plant and insect for purposes of plant reproduction,
and related matters (the grub eats the plant before metamorphosis
etc); and, b) the quite obvious mirror like form characteristics
between flowers and many large winged insects (moths and butterflies).
These need to be pointed out, and wondered at, even if there
is no current adequate "explanation".]

C The elements are earth, water, fire and
air;

[The doctrine of the elements is very good
"science" as long as it is understood as to what it
is about, and not mistated. When it is said that matter is made
up of these elements, in the same way that matter is composed
of the chemical elements, this would be a confusion of what the
doctrine of the elements is about. What the doctrine of the elements
attempts to "observe" is the qualitative aspects of
Nature, as opposed to the merely quantitiative. As you can guess
this is very difficult for modern minds, because we have been
trained to "look" only in certain kinds of ways at
the natural world. It is possible to acquire a more whole ability
to "see", and learning to observe and appreciate the
qualitative is a step in this direction. It does require a degree
of observational and mental discipline to not commit errors of
judgment when looking at the natural world in this way, but it
can be done. Just consider this puzzle: Many chemical reactions
take place with a balance by weight being maintained on each
side of the chemical equation, but the reaction also "liberates"
heat as a by product. Where does this "fire" come from?]

C The heart not a pump, or circulatory
system is described, but the role of the heart is not explained;

[I'll skip this one as too much rehashed on
this list, so pointless to engage upon]

C Planets influence growth of plants;

[The question is whether Kolisko's experiments,
published under the title "Agriculture for Tomorrow",
have been repeated or tested. If we accept them at face value,
they do establish the relationship between the planets and plant
life. Someone else may know whether replication has been obtained
for this work.]

C Plants are like a man upside down;

[First of all you have to understand the idea
of the threefold plant and the idea of the threefold man. This
means becoming familiar with Grohmann's "The Plant"
and Schad's "Man and Mammals". Any attempt, to argue
this on the list with someone who has not bothered to read these
books and understand what they reveal, is pointless. Once these
books are understood the above statement can be seen as completely
true as regards what it really says and means.]

C Goethean vs Newtonian color theory;

[As other's have pointed out, these "theories"
are not in conflict with each other, so much as looking at different
facts and therefore coming to different conclusions. They both
should be taught and their relationship unfolded.]

C The body is made up of the nervesense
system, the metabolicmuscular system, and the rhythmic system;

[See above about threefolding, especially
Schad's "Man and Mammals"]

C There are 12 senses, corresponding to
signs of the zodiac;

[That there are twelve senses is a simple
matter of careful self observation. Their relationship to the
zodiac and what that is all about is a whole other matter. Again,
I am not suggesting this be taught in school -- for me, that
is a question with which I am not familiar. One of the teachers,
who actually introduces such ideas to their students, would need
to go into this.]

C There are four kingdoms of nature, mineral,
plant, animal, and man;

[This is a valid way of dividing up the natural
world. If it used, it only needs to be explicated in a detailed
fashion. It should also be taught, I suppose, that mainstream
science does not separate out the animal and the human kingdoms.
We could argue this one until that place freezes, and get no
where. Here again Schad's book points out the fundamental taxinomic
differences between mammals and man, which justify such a division.
We should perhaps recall that many "advances" in human
knowledge are heretical at the time they are introduced, being
at odds with the current point of view.]

[As to the rest, I suspect they are not commonly
taught in Waldorf Schools (only suspect, as my kids never got
them in the three different schools they were in). By the way,
do you have a corresponding list of what should be asked of a
main stream first grade teacher?]

warm regards,

joel a. wendt.

"The Idea of Mind: a Christian meditator
looks at the problem of
consciousness" http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/tidom.html
"The Quiet Suffering of Nature": http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/qsfnt.html

I am distinguishing the question of these
ideas as a true reflection of reality from the question of when
and how and under what circumstances they can or should be taught.
All I am speaking to is the first matter -- their "truth"
chacteristics.

That, of course, is a different matter. The
list is basically an outline I wrote up for myself, to use in
discussions with the teacher. I wanted to know whether these
concepts were introduced in the lower grades, and if so, how
they were treated.

[Are you really suggesting that if something
is contrary to "scientific belief " (whatever that
is), it cannot be taught?]

No, I am suggesting that if something is contrary
to currently accepted scientific theory, it should not be taught
as part of the science curriculum in the lower grades.

By the way, do you have a corresponding
list of what should be asked of a main stream first grade teacher?

No.

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman

[The question is whether Kolisko's experiments,
published under the title "Agriculture for Tomorrow",
have been repeated or tested. If we accept them at face value,
they do establish the relationship between the planets and plant
life. Someone else may know whether replication has been obtained
for this work.]

There is an awful lot of research currently
underway in Britain - by many scientists including Lawrence Edwards
and Stuart Brown. I believe that there is no doubt that the planets
influence the plants, but the research is now going into deeper
realms - effects of electrical high-tension cables etc

I believe that there is no doubt that the
planets influence the plants, but the research is now going into
deeper realms - effects of electrical high-tension cables etc

What mechanism is proposed to explain the
influence that planets have on plant growth?

I suspect that this is an example of anthroposophists
being unable to distinguish between anthroposophical theory and
real science, and that this confusion leads some Waldorf teachers
to teach things that are scientifically unsound as part of a
science curriculum. But I'm willing to be proved wrong, if someone
can explain (1) how plants are influenced by planets, (2) the
mechanism that is proposed to explain this, and (3) the extent
to which this effect is accepted among contemporary biologists,
and if it is not accepted, why the mainstream biologists are
wrong.

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman

What mechanism is proposed to explain the
influence that planets have on plant growth?
I will need to get an expert to come in here - I have no idea
what the mechanism is, but I do know that experiments have shown
there to be an influence - growth patterns vary when the planet
is in particular constellations/conjunction etc (the exact stuff
I do not have, bear with me)

I believe that there is no doubt that the
planets influence the plants, but the research is now going into
deeper realms - effects of electrical high-tension cables etc

What mechanism is proposed to explain the
influence that planets have on plant growth?

I suspect that this is an example of anthroposophists being unable
to distinguish between anthroposophical theory and real science,

[Part of the confusion is the inability of
dogmatic anthroposophists to "explain" the basis of
goethean science, and related ideas from spiritual science. The
conflict is only apparent and depends upon leaving out the context
in which the "anthroposophical" idea comes into being.
The problems are multiple and occur on several levels. At the
fondational level the question can arise as to under what circumstances
the human being can understand and come to knowledge of the organic
aspects of nature (as opposed to the inorganic). This epistimological
question is solved in Steiner's "Theory of Knowledge Implicit
in Goethe's World Conception". It can't be resolved on this
list in a give and take dialogue, because the "solution"
involves careful and objective acts of introspection -- that
is "proof" or "understanding" requires something
of the "critic", which experience has shown me the
critic is not willing to undertake. Thus a kind of standoff arises,
with the dialogue taking place at the level of ideas, and not
at the level practical realities. At the level of ideas there
can be no resolution because the method of knowledge of the goetheanist
is different and heretical as respects the method of knowledge
of the critic.]

and that this confusion leads some Waldorf
teachers to teach things that are scientifically unsound as part
of a science curriculum. But I'm willing to be proved wrong,
if someone can explain (1) how plants are influenced by planets,

[Both in main stream and goethean science
one can observe relationships without knowing exactly "why"
(i.e., how is it caused). The first question is: Is there a relationship?
Kolisko's work establishes this experimentally. Now in main stream
science the immediate effort would be to theorize as to "how",
whereas in goethean science that tendency of the mind to leap
in here with "ideas" would be resisted. The working
assumption of goetheanism is that if the facts are completely
and properly observed and described, then theory is unnecessary,
since the facts speak for themselves -- that is the facts are
simultaneously the underlying law. This is the "truth"
of threefolding, for example. Once one learns to "see"
it, it is everywhere, thereby unveiling that polarity is a fundamental
law of nature.]

(2) the mechanism that is proposed to explain
this,

[In goetheanism, especially as regards the
organic, one would not look for an explanatory "mechanism"
because organic nature is observationally not "mechanical"
but "contextual" -- part effects whole and whole effects
part.]

and (3) the extent to which this effect is
accepted among contemporary biologists, and if

it is not accepted, why the mainstream
biologists are wrong.

[Again this is a misapprehension of the problem
between the two points of view. Obviously main stream science
ignores the heretical, just as did the paradigm, in power at
the time science was born, ignored the heresy called natural
philsophy (science). So it is not a question of main stream being
wrong, but of extending human knowledge by adding something to
the methodology by which nature is investigated. If the investigator
adds this something, then he/she becomes a goetheanist. What
is this something? It is the recognition that the human being
is an instrument of investigation and that significant efforts
at the discipline of thinking and observation will increase the
capacities of that instrument.]

Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman